The Official Brexit - Remain Thread - All New Threads Will Be Merged Into This One

[long time lurking]

Never heard of it before, I have learnt something.

Me neither until today http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-brexit-eu-referendum-urgent-question-house-of-commons-leave-europe-a7130851.html

Edited July 12, 2016 by long time lurking

[Peter Hun]

I voted remain, but I'm certain Parliament will HAVE to follow the vote and leave the EU. The discussion is purely on the precise legal mechanism.

However, after leaving its free too negotiate anything up to rejoining the EU (as the EEA)

[slawek]

Royal prerogative is a power that the PM has which has been confirmed by their own lawyers, that it will override any legal challenge to make parliament vote ,but it`s their choice whether they use it

By insisting PM can use royal prerogative in this case they delay triggering article 50 until the court decides this is legal. The treaty requires that the notification process follows constitutional process.

I doubt they will win in the court so the parliament will have to vote. It is unlikely the parliament will vote against the Brexit at the moment. All this discussion seems to me a pointless power struggle between the government and the parliament.

[long time lurking]

By insisting PM can use royal prerogative in this case they delay triggering article 50 until the court decides this is legal. The treaty requires that the notification process follows constitutional process.

I doubt they will win in the court so the parliament will have to vote. It is unlikely the parliament will vote against the Brexit at the moment. All this discussion seems to me a pointless power struggle between the government and the parliament.

They need no direction from court (that was the response/ answer to the "urgent question" which in turn was a valid threat of court action) ,say their lawyers

May has clearly stated that A50 won`t be trigger this year ,i see that as a sensible approach ...get the ducks inline first

Will be interesting to see who get`s to lead May`s new "department for brexit ",

Edited July 12, 2016 by long time lurking

[knock out johnny]

They will do what they want it will either be to their detriment or for their benefit the choice is their`s either way, Royal prerogative is on the table it`s their choice

Royal prerogative is a power that the PM has which has been confirmed by their own lawyers, that it will override any legal challenge to make parliament vote ,but it`s their choice whether they use it

Nope. Royal perogative won't do it - as it cannot negate primary legislation - only other primary legislation can do that. That is a constitutional fundamental

To envoke article 50 the ECA 1972 has to be repealed first - only parliament can do that

Lawyers confirming this are blowing smoke up people's @rse (if that's indeed what they are saying) - I seem to remember certain lawyers telling the cabinet going off to war in Iraq was all tickety-boo too

Edited July 12, 2016 by knock out johnny

[long time lurking]

Royal perogative won't do it - as it cannot negate primary legislation - only other primary legislation can do that

To envoke article 50 the ECA 1972 has to be repealed first - only parliament can do that

Im no lawyer but it don`t read like that hear and they have consulted their lawyers http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-brexit-eu-referendum-urgent-question-house-of-commons-leave-europe-a7130851.html

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Has anyone signed this

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/133618

[knock out johnny]

All this discussion seems to me a pointless power struggle between the government and the parliament.

Yes, because the Executive being controlled by the Members of Parliament is silly isn't it?

Unbelieveable

[zugzwang]

No Brexit until 2022, suggests Philip Hammond, as it will need to be independently ratified by 27 national parliaments...

Asked by Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, whether it would take longer to negotiate Brexit than World War II, he said: "If a future treaty between the UK and the EU 27 is deemed to be a mixed competence it will have to be ratified by 27 national Parliaments.

"The shortest time that has been done in any European Union treaty is just under four years. That's after taking into account all the time it would take to negotiate."

[TheCountOfNowhere]

No Brexit until 2022, suggests Philip Hammond, as it will need to be independently ratified by 27 national parliaments...

BrExit will not happen.

The EU will collapse before then.

[knock out johnny]

Im no lawyer but it don`t read like that hear and they have consulted their lawyers http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-brexit-eu-referendum-urgent-question-house-of-commons-leave-europe-a7130851.html

it's just a bit of willy waving in the Commons - why do you think he's hedging his bets with the line "there is a place for parliament in this process" he knows

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union

declared that prerogative powers cannot be used to abrogate previous enacted primary legislation - to be fair there is some scope to argue that the circumstances are not exactly the same.

Any attempt to use prerogative powers would result in judicial review - if brexiters are frustrated at article 50 not being invoked quickly enough, you ain't seen nothing yet - it could take years and the EU are duty bound to only accept article 50 invocation if it is constitutionally sound from the country in question

[canbuywontbuy]

Any attempt to use prerogative powers would result in judicial review - if brexiters are frustrated at article 50 not being invoked quickly enough, you ain't seen nothing yet - it could take years and the EU are duty bound to only accept article 50 invocation if it is constitutionally sound from the country in question

So we limp along, a country that does the opposite of the mandate given by the public. Sounds about right.

[Riedquat]

We keep getting told that we'll still have to put up with all the downsides of the EU if we're going to trade. Putting aside how accurate that is, the bit I'm increasingly struggling with is who actually gains from what we see as downsides? Someone must for them to exist. The answer is, of course, the EU itself (and what's the point of just some nebulous international organisation gaining?) and the elites, but who do the vast majority who aren't them think gains?

[knock out johnny]

So we limp along, a country that does the opposite of the mandate given by the public. Sounds about right.

It was always going to be a process - that's what happens when people vote on an idea instead of a clearly defined policy -

Has anyone signed this

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/133618

[knock out johnny]

or maybe I'm just talking cobblers

another perspective

Brexit | On why, as a matter of law, triggering Article 50 does not require Parliament to legislate

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/06/30/brexit-on-why-as-a-matter-of-law-triggering-article-50-does-not-require-parliament-to-legislate/

It's long!

[Bloo Loo]

we dont have to invoke any article at all to part from a treaty.

Indeed, we are already excluded from meetings...a de facto breach of contract.

it's just a bit of willy waving in the Commons - why do you think he's hedging his bets with the line "there is a place for parliament in this process" he knows

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union

declared that prerogative powers cannot be used to abrogate previous enacted primary legislation - to be fair there is some scope to argue that the circumstances are not exactly the same.

Any attempt to use prerogative powers would result in judicial review - if brexiters are frustrated at article 50 not being invoked quickly enough, you ain't seen nothing yet - it could take years and the EU are duty bound to only accept article 50 invocation if it is constitutionally sound from the country in question

[CunningPlan]

we dont have to invoke any article at all to part from a treaty.

Indeed, we are already excluded from meetings...a de facto breach of contract.

I did wonder why we were excluded from last week's meeting since AIUI we are still full members until we push the button.

Perhaps we don't need to pay if we aren't invited to the party?

[Steppenpig]

We weren't excluded from any EU meetings, the other members of the EU held a non-EU informal meeting.

[Digsby]

The debate on the e-petition for a second referendum is scheduled for Sept 5th

[Silverfinger]

We weren't excluded from any EU meetings, the other members of the EU held a non-EU informal meeting.

Still, this are a bully tactics. I wonder who came up with it.

[Riedquat]

The debate on the e-petition for a second referendum is scheduled for Sept 5th

So Sept 4th to invoke Article 50.

[Digsby]

If you've read my rantings on this forum, you'll know where I'm coming from

Question: why was it explicitly worded in the referendum act that it would not be legally binding?

The answer's in the question

If you wish to dispense with legality in an established system of governance, what principles are left? The say of the leader? or the mob? - choose your poison

I may have been the first on this forum to point out that it was not legally binding and that the government was within it's rights to ignore the result (before the vote, based on my not having read any other post stating that before mine).

From my laymans point of view, the purpose of Parliament is to represent the views of the citizens, and Parliament gains it's legitimacy by virtue of the fact that the members are democratically elected by the citizens.

In this instance, the view of the citizens is known and therefore they do not need Parliament to represent them. Plus, if it did come down to a Parliamentary vote and the vote went against, what legitimacy can that Parliament claim when we all know they are not representing the view of the citizens?

Overreact much?

****** OFF!!!!!!!!!!!

[Silverfinger]

From my laymans point of view, the purpose of Parliament is to represent the views of the citizens, and Parliament gains it's legitimacy by virtue of the fact that the members are democratically elected by the citizens.

Some say parliament is there to protect the populace from their own stupidity by making better decisions than they could...

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Some say parliament is there to protect the populace from their own stupidity by making better decisions than they could...

Some.....THEY

[Digsby]

So Sept 4th to invoke Article 50.

Perhaps, though I think a second referendum has been ruled out and wouldn't expect this to get anywhere, the response does point out that retroactively changing the margin of majority rules is out of the question, as it should be.

Personally, I think the most practical solution would be an immediate invocation, with an immediate proposal to fully adopt the 4 freedoms for access to the common market, with the objective of reaching a multilateral agreement as soon as possible.

Any changes in the nature of that agreement can then take place in due course once any necessary restructuring of the economy (here, and there) has taken place.

This would of course not satisfy those for whom immigration is the primary concern, and throws the question of immigration out there to be decided through elections which will probably not be acceptable to those people, who feel the referendum result means immigration must be capped now (and they hold the high ground on that now), but of course that was not the question that was asked. But they may feel that they will be denied it in the course of time.

The other problem with my solution is that it will diminish our negotiating position in that we may hold the stronger hand right now and should perhaps go for the kill.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Digsby